JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for the eviction of the present petitioner from the land in dispute. Vide order dated 23rd April, 1996, the Assistant Collector found that the petitioner had been given land measuring 14 kanals 18 marlas on lease for Rs. 1300/- in the year 1984-85. Thereafter, the petitioners possession was unauthorised. Consequently, he was ordered to be evicted. The petitioner filed an appeal. It has been dismissed by the Collector. The findings recorded by the Assistant Collector have been affirmed. Copies of the two orders have been produced on record as Annexure P.1 and P.4 respectively. The petitioner prays that these orders be quashed. 2. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Gram Panchayat. It has been inter alia averred that the land has been given on lease to the petitioner for a period of one year. He has already continued for a period of 17 years. The petitioners possession was unauthorised. Thus, he has been rightly ordered to be evicted. 3. Shri Achint, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that he is a tenant at will. Reliance is placed on the Khasra-Girdawari, copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition. 4. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties we find that the land had been given to the petitioners on lease for a year for an amount of Rs. 1300/-. Since the petitioner claimed to have spent a substantial amount of Rs. 12, 000/- on levelling the land etc., the Assistant Collector had considered it appropriate to waive the amount of money which had fallen due during the period front the year 1985 to 1996. However, it is apparent that there was no renewal of the lease. The petitioners possession was unauthorised. Thus, the findings recorded by the two authorities call for no interference. 6. Shri Dinarpur contends that the petitioner has not paid for the use and occupation of the land even after the year 1996. If that be so, the Panchayat shall be at liberty to seek its remedy in accordance with law. 7. The petitioners possession was unauthorised. Thus, the findings recorded by the two authorities call for no interference. 6. Shri Dinarpur contends that the petitioner has not paid for the use and occupation of the land even after the year 1996. If that be so, the Panchayat shall be at liberty to seek its remedy in accordance with law. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.